It's Uphill For Obama

[Guest epigonos]

“So, why Mr. Epigonos do you want to criticize a man who devoted his career to public service? Is that no longer an admirable way to make a living? I'll bet a lot of high school teachers would disagree with you.”

I didn’t criticize Obama or a life “devoted” to public service. I was simply answering your previous question.

“What has he (Romney) done to make an income lately, Epigonos?”

If one of your criticisms of Romney is that he hasn’t done anything to make an income lately I was simply pointing out that neither has Barak Obama and you didn’t criticism him for that fact. Is that a double standard Mr. Lucky?

[Lucky]

Mr. Epigonos, is not the presidency a job? Mr. Obama works at it, and he is paid for it...some 400k a year, plus lots of benefits.

Now about Bain Capital?

[Guest epigonos]

The answer to the following: “Mr. Epigonos, how does blame for the economic mess pass to Clinton? He left office with budget surpluses.” is easy.

One of the greatest criticisms of large corporations lately has been directed at the huge oil companies for price gouging and thus disrupting the economy. During Bill Clinton’s Presidency the Labor Department and the Attorney General allowed the largest number of violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in modern times. Today there are only six (6) major oil companies operating in the United States and Western Europe: 1. British Petroleum (United Kingdom), 2. Chevron Corporation (United States), 3. ExxonMobil Corporation (United States), 4. Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands & United Kingdom), 5. Total S.A. (France) and, 6. ConocoPhillips (United States). Prior to the Clinton Presidency there were dozens. The Clinton years saw creation of huge monopolies in one industry after another. Another excellent example would be the consolidations that took place in the banking industry.

[Lucky]

Mr. Epigonos, still no answer how a gay man can support Romney, nor an answer to how you can support a guy who did what Romney did at Bain Capital.

Answers,Mr. Epigonos. You may not have to show any stinkin' badges, but answers, yes.

Now as for your "easy" answer on Clinton. There were 7 major oil companies, known as the Seven Sisters. These are the ones that counted.

Reagan was president when the oil companies were gouging Americans after the big oil shortages in 1979. He didn't enact a criminal prosecution against a single one.

As a matter of fact, the big oil companies actually wrote the legislation that they were supposed to follow- hardly the sign of an administration trying to protect the American consumer!

[RA1]

What oil shortages?

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest epigonos]

Mr. Lucky I do NOT define myself by any ONE issue. Yes I am a gay man but I am also many other things. I am a senior citizen (soon to be 71). I am an American citizen. I am a native Southern California. I am a member of the middle class. I am a fiscal reactionary conservative. I am a social libertarian. I am moderately well educated. I am well read on a number of subjects. I am unapologetically a Republican. Now those are but of a few additional ways I define myself besides being a gay man. If you choose to define yourself solely as a gay man that is your choice; it is NOT mine.

[TampaYankee]

The answer to the following: “Mr. Epigonos, how does blame for the economic mess pass to Clinton? He left office with budget surpluses.” is easy.

Quite simple. Clinton presided as Rubin, his Treasury Secretary, led the charge to repeal the Glass Steagle Act which kept separate investment banking from commercial banking. The rest is history including the Great Recession of 2008 started by collapse and near collapse of banking that had a leg in each market.

True he had Republican Congress help, but they could not have done without Clinton who chose not just to accede to, but to lead repeal. 'nuf said.

Of course Bush gets a lot of credit too, appointing a narcoleptic SEC and appointing lackadaisical regulators at every opportunity not to mention numerous other irresponsible economic actions.

Obama's greatest failure to date is not to have reinstated the essence of Glass-Steagle. We remain at risk for another crash. However, that is on the way to being superseded by his poor performance on jobs.

[Lucky]

Mr. Lucky I do NOT define myself by any ONE issue. Yes I am a gay man but I am also many other things. I am a senior citizen (soon to be 71). I am an American citizen. I am a native Southern California. I am a member of the middle class. I am a fiscal reactionary conservative. I am a social libertarian. I am moderately well educated. I am well read on a number of subjects. I am unapologetically a Republican. Now those are but of a few additional ways I define myself besides being a gay man. If you choose to define yourself solely as a gay man that is your choice; it is NOT mine.

Of course I knew that already, but just enjoyed getting you to say it yet again. In my world, gay men do not support the party that has done nothing to help advance them. We don't pretend we can yuk it up with politicians who secretly despise us, but take our money. Social libertarian? Sure, if that makes you feel better. But the fact is, in my opinion, that gays voting for Republicans either do it because they are concerned about their investments, which I can at least understand, or because of an internalized homophobia of their own. If they just support the Republicans, maybe they are more acceptable than they think. Kind of like the guy in Kansas who wants his guns so he will vote for a party that consistently acts against his economic interests.

[Guest epigonos]

Mr. Lucky you are certainly entitled to your opinion on this subject and all others; as am I. I certainly respect your right to disagree with me and I hope you return the same respect to me.

[Lucky]

Mr. Lucky you are certainly entitled to your opinion on this subject and all others; as am I. I certainly respect your right to disagree with me and I hope you return the same respect to me.

I do, I do. (Not words the Republicans want me to say!). What would the Politics forum be like if we all just parroted each other?

[Guest epigonos]

Damn, Lucky, something about which we can both agree. I do enjoy our "little" differences. Have fun!!!!!

[Guest hitoallusa]

I understand your point. I wrote my previous post in haste so I hope I've not offended you.

[Guest hitoallusa]

In Dick Cheney's memoir In My Life he states the following on page 56

" People with entrenched interests often like the status quo. You can find good ideas but not necessarily be able to implement them."

Well I am pretty sure a lot of people on this site don't like Cheney but I totally agree with the above statement and also what Epigonos stated in his post. I watched the republican debate and poor Perry he got hammered by his rivals. It's sad, ugly and unfortunate. No matter who gets elected they seem to forget that they themselves have to face the same people with entrenched interests whom Obama is facing right now. Instead of attacking Obama and their rivals for incompetency, what about talking about how they can cooperate to manage people with entrenched interests. I believe that's what they should be talking about in the debate instead of fighting about who is more competent. Yes they all have great ideas and enthusiasm. They all love this country. But will they be able to go against these powerful people who will do anything in their power to protect their interests?

[Lucky]

Damn, Lucky, something about which we can both agree. I do enjoy our "little" differences. Have fun!!!!!

But you are the one they wrote about in the NY Times today, not me!

"As Perry Rises, G.O.P. Elite Look Toward Romney"

GOP elite, get it? That's Mr. Epigonos!

[Guest epigonos]

Damn, Lucky thanks for the compliment. During my life I have been called many different things BUT one of the elite has NEVER been one of them. I guess I have finally made it.

Hitoallusa I have always claimed that the English Language proved its greatness by starting the words politician and prostitute with the same letter. Special interests have ruled this country since day one. At the time of the country’s founding the landed oligarchs in the South and the commercial oligarchs in New England ruled together. Neither really gave a damn about the poor. Nowadays both the Democrats and the Republicans are bought and paid for by the various groups. The banking oligarchs, the oil oligarchs, the business oligarchs, the agriculture oligarchs, the religious oligarchs, etc. all donate MONEY (to campaign fund raisers) to members of both parties’ to look after and protect their SPECIAL interests. The union oligarchs play the same game but “usually” only with the Democrats. An excellent example of this absurdity is that both farm belt Democrats and Republicans do all in their power (quite successfully) to protect farm subsidies. The fact is farmers are currently making huge profits exporting their grains and meat products. Support subsidies are unnecessary. The truth is that these subsidies are a major rip off of tax payers’ dollars. Farm belt Democrats and Republicans could care less because they are collecting huge amounts of campaign dollars from the agriculture lobby. The list goes on and on.

[MsGuy]

Something to think about:

"The odds of me being re-elected are much higher than the odds of me being elected in the first place."

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, reassuring donors about the upcoming presidential election at two fundraisers Thursday in the Washington, D.C. area

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/09/16/the-lessons-of-ending-dont-ask-dont-tell/#ixzz1Y7vCe4Rh

[lookin]

For much of the past year, I've been hoping that Obama and Clinton would get together and agree to switch roles for the next eight years.

I think she would make a great President and he would make a great Secretary of State. When the eight years are over, he could run for his second term in 2020, an international statesman with greater political gravitas. There's no denying that America's international relations are much improved from the GWB years, and that both Obama and Clinton have contributed to the shift. There's no denying that they work well together. And there's no denying her electability over the current field of Republican candidates.

The announcement would have to come jointly from both Clinton and Obama, with all ego put aside in the interest of the nation. In fact, let it be his idea with her reluctant agreement.

It would confound the Republicans whose sole political ambition seems to be Obama's defeat in 2012. It would take all the wind out of their sails, and force them to focus on what they will do rather than what they won't do. Other than getting rid of Obama, there hasn't been a single idea that's caused any excitement among the Republican 'base', and I use the word advisedly.

As an aside, Americans would have the opportunity to elect our first black president and our first female president within four years.

And can you imagine anything more fun than watching a Clinton-Bachmann debate?

PS: I personally have little problem voting for Obama again in 2012, but I would welcome Clinton's presidency while she's still got the stamina.

[TampaYankee]

I wouldn't have any objection although I was very anti-Hillary in the past. She has proven herself to me in capability which I was very suspect of before. In these times I believe the country would benefit from more proactive leadership. On the other hand this is pure fantasy.

[Lucky]

Has anyone seen Hillary and Bill together in the last couple of years?

(My thread here has turned into one of the all-stars of the Politics forum, so I thought I could toss out a frivolous inquiry with no harm! I do wonder.)

[MsGuy]

Has anyone seen Hillary and Bill together in the last couple of years?

Surprisingly intriguing question.

I found a foto dated September this year but no occasion mentioned. Might be the dated posted, rather than taken. I'm not too good at this stuff.

Other than that, the only photographic evidence of the two of them together was taken at some Saudi official function back in February.

[Guest rohale]

I'm sure the Obama camp would like to run a 1984 Reagan campaign style of "It's Good Morning In America", alas they cant. The president's political advisors are more likely to take a page from the 2004 Bush campaign style of burying the opponent early with flip-flops, make the guy look like a joke all throughout the campaign. At the same try to rally up the base and hope for the best come election day.

[BgMstr4u]

I haven't been logged in to this site for a long time. It's nice to be back. I notice in this post that Lucky references me citing an article about Rick Perry being the one to watch for the GOP nomination.

One of the things I love about politics is how it changes. And boy, did this one change!

[Guest EXPAT]

I haven't been logged in to this site for a long time. It's nice to be back. I notice in this post that Lucky references me citing an article about Rick Perry being the one to watch for the GOP nomination.

One of the things I love about politics is how it changes. And boy, did this one change!

And thank god it did change. I don't think I could take much more of Perry and I doubt Texas will take any more of him either. He might have to apply for unemployment insurance soon.